The shocking
conclusion of a report by Physicians for Social Responsibility is that over the
last 13 years, scattered across Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, were at least
1.3 million and possibly even 2 million civilian casualties caused by Western
military intervention. Two million civilians. Talk
about barbaric and cruel. Yet no politician has condemned this violence. … In
this context, is it really surprising that a violent reaction followed the
disruption of a region created by a U.S. military intervention? … The war on terror
generation, for which concepts like 'democracy' and 'human rights' exist mostly
as one-liners invented to sell war, is the result of years of illegal interventions,
bloody (proxy) wars, Western support for brutal and extremely conservative
dictatorships and economic exhaustion. The West has proven itself to be an
enemy. Radical Islam is putting the enemy in its place - and therein lays its
appeal.

Almost every week, opinion makers try to stand out by making
statements of greater or lesser eloquence about Islam and what columnist Afshin Elian calls the intrinsic relationship between
violence and Islam.

Last week it was the turn of our old friend AyaanHirsi Ali to recite a new version of this old
refrain as a guest on JeroenPauw’s
TV program and the Trouw
newspaper. "Muslims must consciously decide to confront the violent
elements within their religion, discuss it and eventually reject it," she
said. Old wine in new bottles, I hear you thinking.

Indeed, it has been common practice for several years to
hold Muslims responsible for violence committed in the name of their religion.
Islam is the problem is the dominant way of thinking. It's an easy proposition.
Opinion leaders, columnists and politicians are therefore eager to score with
this sentiment. They all feel a need to remind Muslims to display their
so-called collective responsibility and fall over each other attempting to
condemn the violence as much as possible. We don't necessarily understand its
causes but want to condemn it. Terrorists are cruel, barbaric, inhuman and deserve no sympathy.

That such a sentiment is no longer reserved to the political
right is proven by de Volkskrant
editor Sander van Walsum. According to him, militant
Islam is a radical ideology in the tradition of fascism and communism.

"As the 20th century has taught us, radical ideologies
thrive mainly by virtue of those who look the other way - not to mention those
who make excuses for it," writes van Walsum, who
concludes with the now-tiresome appeal to "moderate" Muslims to speak
out against Islamist violence. We'll be hearing such appeals forever more after
the foiled attack on Garland Texas last Sunday night.

The starting point for those who hold this view is that the
key to militant Islam implicitly lies somewhere within the inaccessible caverns
of faith; Muslims should avoid such caverns and that will be the end of it.
However, the context in which the violence takes place is completely ignored,
whereas it is precisely that context which is interesting.

In that context, a startling report appeared last month by
the non-governmental organization Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) - winner of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. The 101-page report
entitled Body Count is an
attempt to provide the total number of victims of the "war against terror."
The shocking conclusion of the report is that over the last 13 years, scattered
across Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, were at least 1.3 million and possibly
even 2 million civilian casualties caused by Western military intervention. That
figure disregards victims in countries like Somalia, Libya, Syria, Mali and
Yemen. Two million civilians. Talk about barbaric and
cruel. Yet no politician has condemned this violence.

Indeed, although there is some consensus on the illegality
of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there has been absolutely no question about a
political change. All the drivers of that war - from Tony Blair to Colin Powell
and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer -
retain influential positions and are seen as people with respectable records. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, now a
lobbyist for the war industry, became an Officer in the Order of Orange
Nassau in December 2003 (coincidentally not long after he secured Dutch
support for the illegal war in Iraq).

The two million victims of the war on terror, however, like
the PSJ report, remain virtually undiscussed
in the Netherlands.

In this context, is it really surprising that a violent
reaction followed the disruption of a region created by a U.S. military
intervention? Thirteen years after President Bush's endless war began, this is
the result: a chaotic region filled with countless fanatical young men from
around the world for whom the attacks of September 11, 2001 are a distant
memory; and a declaration of war by George W. Bush which followed which has proven
a harbinger of uncertain times. They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind, says an appropriate adage.

Posted By Worldmeets.US

The war on terror generation, for which concepts like
"democracy" and "human rights" exist mostly as one-liners
invented to sell war, is the result of years of illegal interventions, bloody
(proxy) wars, Western support for brutal and extremely conservative
dictatorships and economic exhaustion. The West has proven itself to be an
enemy. Radical Islam is putting the enemy in its place - and therein lays its
appeal.

It is time that we regard militant Islam as a political
phenomenon rather than a religious mutation. If we insist that peaceful
solutions must come solely from the Islamic side, we ignore the nearly two
million deaths and the warmongering role of the West. In that case, the war on terror
will haunt us for generations - with all of its consequences.

*Dirk Wanrooij is author of the book Revolt, a Chronicle of the
Egyptian Revolution, which was published in March by the BezigeBij publishers. He continues to live in the Egyptian
capital Cairo, where he works as a freelance journalist and entrepreneur.
Follow him on twitter: @dirkwanrooij